Division I of the Court of Appeals held on Tuesday that a proposed Bellingham initiative, which would prohibit the City from installing or using an automated traffic camera system unless approved by a majority of the city council and a majority of the voters, exceeded the lawful scope of the local initiative power. An initiative is beyond the scope of the initiative power if it involves powers granted by the legislature to the governing body of a city, rather than the city as a corporate entity. The Court reasoned that because RCW 46.63.170, authorizing the use of automated traffic safety cameras, specifies that in order to use automatic traffic safety cameras for the issuance of traffic infractions, the “appropriate local legislative authority” must first enact an ordinance allowing for their use, the exercise of the city council’s authority was not subject to initiative.

In addition, the Court reversed the trial court, which had granted the initiative sponsors’ special motion to strike ATS’s complaint and imposed penalties under the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The Anti-SLAPP statute allows a defendant to make a special motion to strike any claim based on his or her “public participation and petition.” In order to overcome a special motion to strike, the plaintiff may show that it will likely succeed on the merits of the claim. Because the court concluded that ATS would likely succeed on the merits of its claim, it reversed the trial court’s decision.

However, the Court of Appeals denied ATS’s request for an injunction preventing the initiative from being placed on the ballot. The court reasoned that, even if placed on the ballot and passed by a majority of the voters, the initiative would have no legal force. Consequently, ATS could not establish “actual and substantial injury” to its contractual interests justifying injunctive relief.